High-stakes teacher evaluations may not help
(N.Y.) High-stakes teacher evaluations have not been shown to improve student achievement and may even be detrimental to student success, according to a recent study.
Researcher Alyson Lavigne, an assistant professor of curriculum studies at Roosevelt University, said that even when highly-reliable and valid measures are implemented and teacher retention is based on effectiveness instead of seniority, results may be dismal.
“Even if basic requirements and assumptions are met, gains in student achievement may be short-lived, insignificant, or practically meaningless,” Lavigne wrote. “The possible unintended consequences could result in worse, rather than better, student achievement outcomes and increase the gap in opportunity to learn for students attending the most and least affluent schools.”
Prompted by federal grants and No Child Left Behind waiver exceptions, a large majority of states have battled with the complexities of adopting new college and career ready standards while also overhauling teacher evaluation systems in order to include student test scores. Critics argued that it was unfair to base teacher salary or job security on student scores which were expected to be lower due to the new tests.
Specifically, Race to the Top winners must consider teacher evaluations when making decisions regarding professional development, compensation, promotions, tenure and dismissal. A similar demand has been made on states that received waivers from key requirements called for under NCLB.
Supporters of high stakes evaluations say they make it easier to remove ineffective teachers, reward effective ones, and identify and support those who are struggling, thereby creating a better learning environment for students.
According to the study’s author, however, unintended consequences in areas including teacher attrition, retention, stress, morale and job satisfaction arise from the use of such evaluations despite the good intentions when considering them.
As part of a natural pattern, effective teachers will likely choose to remain while ineffective ones will drop out of the profession without being pushed out through a tough evaluation process. However, even effective teachers are more likely to leave struggling schools when graded on a value-added High-stakes teacher evaluations may not help :: SI&A Cabinet Report :: The Essential Resource for Superintendents and the Cabinet:
SBE to set attendance mark for federal reporting
(Calif.) Elementary and middle schools would be expected to maintain an average student attendance rate of 93 percent for federal accountability purposes, under a plan set to come before the California State Board of Education next week.
Staff is also recommending the board consider using chronic absenteeism rates as an indicator of school success in its own accountability system – currently under development.
A memo out this week from the California Department of Education said that “the impact of chronic absenteeism on student achievement and dropout rates, and its correlation with attendance data suggest that chronic absenteeism would be a good indicator in the new multiple measures accountability system.”
The action follows adoption earlier this year of several amendments to the state’s federally-required accountability plan, one of which was using attendance data to replace California’s Academic Performance Index as an indicator of Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Amendments to the plan, which must be approved by the U.S. Department of Education, are being made even as Congress is considering a rewrite of the federal education law that would return broad authority over accountability reporting to the states. The CDE staff notes, for instance, that 2015 could be the last year the agency is required to produce the AYP report if NCLB is reauthorized this fall.
California – one of only six states in the nation not granted a waiver from meeting the performance mandates set out in NCLB – has gone its own way, refusing to report test scores not aligned to current curriculum and negotiating with federal officials on alternate methods for accountability.
The state board in January approved seven amendments to the so-called Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook, including replacing the test score-based API. That move effectively gave students and teachers another year to adjust to the new content standards without having to worry about performance requirements.
While statewide testing is a part of the plan being worked out between state and federal officials,